When using an AMRAAM, the fighter’s HUD displays the maximum firing range, no-escape zone, approximate time to impact, and so on. How can the onboard computer accurately calculate this data if it doesn’t have the specifications for the new missile?
1 Like
Modularity in whole R-27 family.
ARAGM missle just need to been launched in right direction.
And it’s your part - proof, that EP been in manual.)
Ok…
1 more time, to the ones, who have thickest skulls…
№970, which MiG-29, able to use R-27, been modified to use R-77.
Then, it been use (without more modifications), to test R-27EA.
That means, plane, which can use R-27, and R-77, CAN use R-27EA, because, can launch R-27, and can guide ARH missiles.
I explained it so simply that even a person far from the world of aviation understood. If you don’t understand even this way, I’ll just wash my hands of it. I can explain something to a person who doesn’t understand something, but I can’t explain it to someone who is unable to understand (impossible, too stupid) or doesn’t want to (useless).
I’ll be happy if it be true.
But Flogger sent me a flight manual, and here been nit a word, about EP (anti-radiation).
yes but they cant operate with one way datalink as well.
you can fit only 2 120A/B into a single compartment on the 22, they made the 120C with smaller fins so that it could fit 3 in a single compartment (overall 6)
- i stated nearly the same
- R-27EA and ER have a similar nose cone. none of these has a flat cap
Any trustable sources of that?
So you know that changes to guide R-77 in case of MiG-29 was different radar? No?
two methods of use.
either enable master arm and override launch auth or tell your ground crew engineer to enter the data into the mission computer.
its actually done with each sortie but people tend to overlook this
It’s not that easy. Detect radiation source, it’s type, fly into permissible zone of launch, then launch it.
Are you sure about that?
What about GPS?
Similar to 100% or theres difference?
Flat cap - example.
And not being able to calculate exact range, time, NEZ. GJ.
Weapon controller and mission computer are different things.
Yeah, the evidence, meaning that you been wrong.
While my logic, and historical facts, at least don’t saying against my position.
No.
That proves only, that HARM can be used by this adapter. (Modified AERO-5)
Phoenix still too big, heavy, and DON’T FIT to this adapter.
So, your argument is invalid.
Still too easy, try more.
(Just, for real, dude. If you use that type of arguments (like me), be sure, that them confirming your position - not deny it.)
yes they have multiple operating modes.
Only documents are acceptable . While you have no solid proofs or enough trustable secondary sources you proven nothing
side effect of forced launch.
we deal with it.
many times integrated but you get what i mean.
Proofs of that?
Even on your pic EA have different cone.
You mean to break weapon system? Or what?
ADATS, XM-803/MBT, HSTV-L all, with Obj./X-prefix be like…
F-22, too, dont shoot anything, but some goofy “spy” baloon, so what - “it never exists”?
First, you need to prove that it can be launched from a production Su-27.
No, it means that the author of the book did not anticipate that you would spout nonsense and support it with an excerpt from his book. Another question is why you assume the author is competent in matters of missile deployment?
Since when is a forum post someone’s opinion considered a historical fact?
Prove it.
1 Like
About what?
LOAL to ET?
It’s logic compared to R-27 modular principles, and capabilities.
Compatibility to EA?
Logic + historical proofs.
I really tired to retype same things, to 3 thick-scull boyos, who want proofs, get them, said they “dont believe” (like someone give a duck about their “believers”), and don’t get anything to the table.
So:
Logic unacceptable there, if R-27ET had LOAL it was be able to mounted not olny on wing, but manual says only about LOBL.
Give solid proofs that it has LOAL.